DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

#6 It Is!

Wow. great news comes in 3's!

1. EJ gone.
2. tax threshold higher.
3. Coin flip victory.

Of course if Detroit wins a top 3 pick they drop us back to #7... but for today we are living the dream!

Wouldn't DET moving up be the ultimate kick in the junk?

user-pic
John reply to Brian on Apr 16 at 16:40
+/-

detroit moving up and the sixers ending up at 9 might be slightly worse

You're into that whole math thing, right? So the Sixers absolute best chance at a top-three pick would be the Nets/T-Wolves getting the #1 and #2 picks in any order, correct? Then the Sixers odds at the #3 pick would be about 9.6% (53/551), correct?

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to tk76 on Apr 16 at 19:26
+/-

if anyione behind us gets a top3, we drop to 7

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Apr 16 at 19:30
+/-

and if 3 teams jumpe ahead - the sixers drop to 9

that's how the lottery works

It must have been bad karma for Dumars as it seemed obvious to me Detroit was tanking at the end of the season since they had a ton of 'injuries' of guys who said in the press they could play (though that last game of theirs really surprised me).

So, the question is, how high can we pick and still get a difference maker? Also, by difference maker are you meaning someone who can make a small difference or a big impact?

Wall, Favors, Turner are the three guys I think can really turn a franchise around. Cousins has the talent to be that kind of a player, but I'm not confident he'll realize it. Johnson has the potential to be a perfect fit with Jrue and Iguodala and be the go-to scorer we need.

That's my feeling. Top three pick (as long as they don't use #3 on Cousins) changes everything. If either Cousins or Johnson fall to us at #6, we have the potential to really improve. Beyond those 5 guys, though, I don't think the odds are very good that you're going to get an all star.

Potential/Ceiling:

Wall: star-superstar

Turner: Star.

Favors: ? (Not that I doubt him, I just don't know enough about him.) Great fit with this team.

Cousins: Who knows? ?Star. Depends on attitude and the type of team he is on.

Johnson: Maybe star, but that is probably a reach. Excellent fit and could be good right away.

user-pic
Chris reply to Brian on Apr 16 at 16:59
+/-

Hopefully, we can get one of those guys (get lucky with the ping pong balls).

One other question. What do you think of Thad being salvageable? Before last year, some pundits were positing he could be a break out star. He had that long stretch before his injury where he was scoring in the mid 20's and shooting better than 50% FG and 40% 3FG. Perhaps he could provide the scoring if he gets 'fixed'. I also think with the right coach he could probably be a better defender and rebounder.

Depends on your definition of salvageable. If you think a guy who can give you 15 points/night off the bench and score efficiently is a success, then definitely. If you're looking for him to be a starter, and a solid contributor, he has a lot of work to do. Personally, I think he could be a valuable asset off the bench, but I'm just not confident he can play the three and he doesn't rebound nearly enough to start at the four.

I would have said as a starter. His first year, he rebounded and defended well. His second year, he started scoring well. His third year, it seems his game fell apart.

Maybe he can be rehabbed enough to trade for something...

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 18:01
+/-

Memphis ended up second from the sixth spot a year ago.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 18:20
+/-

Cousins kind of reminds me of a little bigger Speights. Don't know that he's right for this team.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 18:32
+/-

Speights doesn't play Defense, Cousins does...does he have issues of maturity - sure - but i've never heard universal disdain of his work ethic from 2 professoinals and the GM of the team he's on like we've heard of for speights.

I don't think cousins have the offensive range he has - but if it's a choice between the two - right now - i'd take cousins over speights

Defensive effort and defensive productivity are different. I'm not sure Cousins is a PRODUCTIVE nba defender.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 16 at 18:58
+/-

You can't be productive without effort though - cousins makes the ffort = if he decides to be coachable at least you know he tries on defense

I admit they both have concerns, they're both Jaguars - pretty and shiny but they're going to need a lot of maintenance but Cousins is the newer shinier version and less experience with it - that's probably why i favor him

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 18:35
+/-

Many NBA types are concerned about him off the court.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 18:58
+/-

And they should be - but he's also 19 years old and probably just experienced his first year of coaching - for cousins the interview is huge

user-pic
deepsixersueder on Apr 16 at 18:55
+/-

Thad!s ass. and reb. per 36 min. both went up slightly this year, both considered weakness!s. If we get Turner and we want a core of real young guys growing together would you, over the summer, inquire about an Iggy for Biedrens and another young piece [ Randolph,B.Wright,Morrow]?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersueder on Apr 16 at 19:00
+/-

Morrow is a restricted free agent
the warrios are also a mess and positioning to be sold - it's very unstable in that franchise right now - you might be able to take advantage - but giving them a long term deal probably isn't the way to do it.

PS - i read the first two words of this post as 'thad-ee-ass' some sort of play on his name

user-pic
deepsixersueder reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 16 at 19:05
+/-

Sorry about that. Being on the west coast, no pun intended, is there any truth to the logo possibly joining the Gold. St. front office, John?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersueder on Apr 16 at 19:21
+/-

I'm not originally from the west coast - i knew it's not what you meant - just saying thought it was funny :)

There's a lot of rumors floating around out here regarding the Golden State Warriors Sale - and that if Ellison buys them he wants West to come in with him - I'll tell you this - if Ellison wants West - he'll pay whatever it takes to get West - Remember that 12 million dollar rumor about Coach K to the Nets? Ellison is the same type of guy.

Right now though the 'deal book' just went out for the warriors and one hiccup might be that while the warriors are 'publicly' valued at about 350 million - the current ownership (and stern) might not be willing to accept anything under 400 million (though that extra 50 million probably means nothing to ellison, a 2% licensing fee increase on oracle probably covers that in 6 months).

Ellison is perceived as the front runner but there are rumors of a second guy - also with very deep pockets - also interested - and I don't know how much influence the commissioner has in these transactions versus just tkaing the best deal.

For instance, the dodgers were not sold to the guy with the deepest pockets and highest bid, for reasons many people think have to do with 'controlling spending, bud selig influenced the process so the mccords could win the purchase - they had to go into deep debt whereas the local guy - the angelino would have paid cash and had money to burn (how's that work out for you there Buddy boy?) and the rays (or marlins - i forget which one) transaction a few years ago also didn't go to the highest bidder but ALSO allowed the guy who ran the expos into the ground to own a second team.

I don't believe Stern gets in the way that much though so the warriors will end up with the highest bidder, and ellison has always struck me as the type of guy who doesn't like to be out bid...

However, the West stuff out here is purely conjecture - and honestly - did he do that great a job in Memphis to indicate that he's still 'got it'? Or was owenship too cheap.

If Ellison buys the Warriors - he'll spend like cuban - but be much quieter (and i'm willing to bet, kicking cubans ass (the mavericks) will be part of his agenda)

Just for the record, the guy that ran the Expos into the ground went on to, um, win it all with that 2003 Marlins team that made the Phillies their bitches that next year...

And speaking of the Warriors, would this blog be more or less Depressed if they were still the Phila team we were all stuck watching?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersueder on Apr 16 at 19:22
+/-

Oh yeah, for some of you, here is why you should root for ellison to win the war - cause then i have a team i can root for possibly when i finally decide to give up this crappily run franchise

user-pic
Mike P. reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 16 at 21:40
+/-

I openly root for the Thunder.

Who cares about the shitty boring horribly run sixers?

The Golden State fan base is too good for a horrible team though. They show up and they are loud as hell. I hope this Ellison guy buys them. The more egotistical billionaires the better. That means they will all get into a cock measuring match to make their teams as good as possible and we, the basketball fans, will benefit in the end.

Well, just not the Sixers fans. HA, OUR TEAM IS ASS!

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Mike P. on Apr 16 at 21:53
+/-

That's called the long-standing "Syndrome of Snider".

And oh how I wish we all could shake it.

The Clippers also won their tie breaker. Yay, much love to the Sixers West....

great news

Anyone know when the lottery is?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Max on Apr 16 at 19:33
+/-

May 18th at half time of whatever the 'first' game of the night is - i forget if it's on TNT or ESPN - I think ESPN has it now because they have the draft too

user-pic
rooting for ping pong balls on Apr 16 at 19:55
+/-

so, if the sixers don't manage a top 3 pick, I have something else to root for in the lottery. The warriors getting the #1 pick. If the warriors get the #1 pick they take wall. they then have wall, curry, ellis. One of them has to go. And I think it is obvious who that person is. Ellis is a big time scorer on a reasonable deal (about 11 mill for 4 more years i believe). If they're looking to just get rid of him, we could offer thad, lou, and kapono's expiring. That is a pretty nice package to get if youre the warriors. Two decent young players that could fit your system, and an expiring.
I know ellis has his issues, but with jrue as your point guard, you could mask those defensive issues. Kind of like snow/iverson. So there is your #1 scorer.
So if cousins somehow slips to six, you could have starting lineup of jrue, monte ellis, iggy, cousins, sam. Thats not to bad.
I know some people here aren't big monte ellis fans, but you could get a #1 scoring option for pretty cheap if they end up getting wall, and I think we could really benefit. So go warriors' ping pong balls.

we'd have to give up our draft pick this year if we aren't looking to give any of our 2 skilled players up.

I'm not sure the asking price would be very high for any one of Monta, Maggette or Biedrins.

user-pic
Old School SixerFan reply to Brian on Apr 16 at 23:37
+/-

I'm not sure I want Monta Ellis at all. He is a scorer, but not efficient He was listed on the ESPN "All Gunner" team. He doesn't shoot well from distance. I don't think he's worth more than Iguodala just because he can score inefficiently in that system. I'd rather have AI9 as my SG because of the size and have a great shooting SF. It's also possible that Young could be that player with correct coaching. That's why I like favors.

While I'd try to resign Sammy to a reasonable deal, if we had Favors alongside Speights we'd be OK.

If we had Favors and Dalembert, could they play together?

Favors and Dalembert, interesting question. My gut reaction is that Favors won't be a guy who's going to draw his man away from the hoop right away, so you've got two guys sort of clogging the lane on offense. On the other hand, playing two defensive bigs is far preferable to the countless minutes we saw this season with zero defensive bigs on the floor.

Ultimately, if you get Favors I think his skill set is going to replace Dalembert, meaning if Sammy remains on the Sixers after his contract expires, he's going to be the third big, first off the bench. Which would be a good role for him, IMO.

user-pic
Old School SixerFan reply to Brian on Apr 17 at 0:20
+/-

So you would prefer to play Speights/Favors to Favors/Dalembert?

I would, because they are complementary players, at this stage. Speights is a pure scorer who can play outside, which matches Favors inside game. Plus Favors on D covers for Speights

user-pic
Old School SixerFan reply to rswknight on Apr 17 at 0:46
+/-

If we could get Favors and a good coach rehabilitate Young and get him back on the track he appeared to be on last year, then Dalembert could be traded for another key piece. Then we'd have a lineup of AI9, Holliday, Young, Favors and Speights.

Oh certainly, that is the lineup I've envisioned. An athletic, potentially versatile group capable of performing on both ends very well. They would be killer in transition & with this lineup, the majority of the lineup should be able to post up their matchup every game when forced to play half-court hoops.

Jrue has legit three point range and, with an emerging post game, the ability to get an easy bucket down low on his man against most of his nightly matchups, which lets him use his playmaking as a weapon. Not to mention his screen/roll skill, using either Speights(who is good at either pick & pops or dives) & Favors(a potential Philly version of the Jameer-D12 screen/roll ending in lobs).

Meanwhile, Thad's shot is still developing; he did shoot 40% from 3 on the road this season while shooting 40% at home the year before. He can also score on the block too.

Speights has serious range, with many around the team saying he will be a legit three-point shooter in the near future.

Favors is the power player inside, even though Speights is also capable of playing on the block as well.

Iguodala is the slasher/playmaker, using the space to his advantage. He also has a post up advantage.

That would be the ideal. In fact, even if we don't get Favors, I'd love to see Dalembert and Speights play together a little bit. That combo just made too much sense for Jordan to give it a fair shot.

I have major concerns that Speights will ever defend well enough, even playing next to a defensive force, but it's absolutely worth a shot.

Right now, though, I don't think it's realistic to hold out hope both Speights and Thad will ever be starters for this team.

In the short term, if they do get Favors, I'd probably hope for a starting lineup with Brand and Favors up front.

The fact that Sam and Speights never saw significant time together is yet another indictment of EJ's ineptitude. I do have concerns of Speights ever becoming a "plus" defender, but if he is at least adequate in both team and individual(including his sometimes knack for taking charges) then putting him next to a potential defensive ace could work, especially if the primary lineup also includes two defensive pluses in the backcourt(Jrue/Dala).

As an admittedly fantastic comparison, picture Amare playing next to D12, or a bigger Josh Smith. That could really work, if Favors becomes what he potentially could be.

I am not quite ready to give up on Speights and Thad just yet. Thad especially has a strong work ethic; with a better coach who drills him on what he needs to work on defensively, he could progress to being at least serviceable, given his tools, if not more

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Apr 16 at 22:32
+/-

Just read this for the first time moments ago. It was such an eloquent stroke of ink it deserved recognition.

Thank friggin' goodness someone gave him his due of pub too. Props to Smallwood. It was near melodic.


http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20100416_John_Smallwood__Stefanski_running_Sixers__show_____for_now.html

Uh, you mind telling us what you found so earth-shattering in that article?

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Brian on Apr 17 at 3:35
+/-

earth-shattering? - not sure...

hard truths? - for sure, ... objectively critical.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to eddies' heady's on Apr 17 at 13:35
+/-

And Kate Fagan has been calling out the sixers much longer...it's easy to point out the obvious when others have been doing so for months

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 22:34
+/-

Stefanski: "We all have to get together to pull ourselves out of this, including myself. I have a mirror at my house, too."

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 16 at 23:02
+/-

Iguodala on why he's confident Stefanski will make the right hire this time: "I think, as players, we have to continue to have trust in him because he has trust in us. He believes in me. I believe in him. We have dialogue about basketball. I think the most important thing for me to do is just let him do his job and just prepare myself as best as possible."

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Apr 17 at 7:35
+/-

Derek, if your out there, a 2 part question? 1] If the sixers stay at 6 on draft night and they here Johnson will be there, is there any reason to trade up for Turner? 2] If Johnson is there at 6, is there any way they pick somebody over him if the "usual suspects" go top 5?

1) I think Turner and Johnson are on completely different levels as prospects. That's not to say I dislike Johnson, if you've been reading here I've been a supporter of his for a long time, so this is more a reflection on how good of a pro Turner will be. Now, does it depend what it costs to get up to #2 ? Yes. But just because Johnson's there at 6 I still see a very big reason to move up to #2 and get Turner.

And yes, Turner would still be my #2 pick over Favors, even though I love Favors as a prospect as well.

2) Honestly, I don't know. I don't have any insight into the Sixers thoughts or preferences. I'm hoping once workouts starts I will. I'm hoping to have access to the workouts, although whether that's through SBNation or DraftExpress is still to be determined.

Derek, I'm right with you. Seems to me that Turner will eventually give you 20 plus points a night with the ability to run the point. He could be dropped into that 2 guard spot from the beginning. Then I think the sixers have to feel the league out and get the good value for Thad or Iggy. Curious to see how tall Turner really is. If he is legit 6'7" NBA size that just enhances his value.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 17 at 8:29
+/-

Do you see any of the late 1st or early 2nd round s.g.!s as a possible starter down the road? Crawford seems very up and down but if he ever gets it?

Both Willie Warren and Avery Bradley appear to be falling into late first range. I'm not a huge Willie Warren fan, but at that point I'd take a flyer on him, and I LOVE Avery Bradley at that spot. If he's there in the late 20's I'm doing everything I can to get a pick and take him. He'd be a much better fit than the combo guards we currently have (I don't necessarily consider Bradley a combo guard, just an undersized two).

In the second round I do like Crawford. He's a blackhole, very inconsistent with his jumper, and physical limitations prevent him from being a plus defender. He's also very ball dominant, so may not be a good fit. But he has enough natural talent to be worth a consideration there.

Couldn't agree more on Avery Bradley. Is Crawford really much different from the three twos we have on the roster now?

Well, he tries on defense, so that makes him an inherently better defender than Louis Williams. I equate him to Meeks defensively.

He's probably more naturally talented than Willie, with the same limitations in regards to a distributor. Probably not as good as Williams getting to the rim, but probably better potential as a shooter.

But really, no, and that's one of the main reasons I wouldn't have that much interest in him on the Sixers.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif